Haley Christina Thomas et al vs Jill Dore-Kent

Case Number

23CV02736

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 01/30/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Establishing Admissions and For Sanctions

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Haley Christina Thomas shall serve a verification to her final responses to the requests for admissions in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.240, subdivision (a), and section 2015.5, on or before February 13, 2026. Defendants’ motion is denied in all other respects.

Background: 

On June 27, 2023, plaintiffs Haley Christina Thomas and Alexandre Hort (collectively, Plaintiffs) initiated this action by filing a complaint against defendants Jill Dore Kent (Kent) and Martin Mielko (collectively, Defendants) stating ten causes of action.

On April 2, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their operative third amended complaint (TAC), stating six causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) violation of state statutes, (3) constructive eviction, (4) negligence, (5) unfair business practices, and (6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

As alleged in the TAC:

Plaintiffs were residential tenants at 312 E. Sola Street in Santa Barbara (Premises). (TAC, ¶ 1.) Defendant Kent was the owner of the Premises. (TAC, ¶ 5.) Defendant Mielko was Kent’s agent, property manager, and employee. (TAC, ¶ 6.)

Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed to a residential lease for the Premises on August 16, 2021. (TAC, ¶ 12 & Ex. A.) Defendants were required to provide a dwelling fit for Plaintiffs’ residential use. (TAC, ¶ 13 & Ex. A.)

“Throughout the course of Plaintiffs’ tenancies, Defendants … allowed the Premises, and Plaintiffs’ Unit, to deteriorate to the extent that living at the Premises was not only untenable practically, but presented, for example, enormous health risks, such as with sewage cascading down the interior of the Premises’ walls, severe water intrusion in multiple rooms of the Unit, and including a visually and trepidatiously sagging ceiling.” (TAC, ¶ 14.)

In May 2022, Plaintiffs informed Defendants of water intrusion, possible mold, and sewage in the kitchen of the Premises. (TAC, ¶ 25.) Plaintiffs received no response from Defendants during ten days of attempting to report the issues. (Ibid.)

On July 2, 2022, Defendants responded to Plaintiffs by serving a 3-Day Notice to Quit. (TAC, ¶ 27.) Defendants then filed and served an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiffs which was later dismissed by way of demurrer. (TAC, ¶ 29.)

“Defendants … had a design not only to actually evict Plaintiffs for their habitability complaints, but performed a constructive eviction of Plaintiffs in order to avoid remediation costs, to avoid tenant buyouts, to avoid move out costs, to avoid statutory or local ordinance entitlements ….” (TAC, ¶ 38.)

On September 25, 2024, Defendants filed a cross-complaint (CC) against Plaintiffs for: (1) breach of contract, (2) indemnification, and (3) waste.

On March 17, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their answer to the CC, asserting a general denial and 19 affirmative defenses.

On June 9, 2025, Kent served on Thomas 13 requests for admission (RFAs) pertaining to a water leak, a lease agreement, and other issues. (Declaration of James F. Scafide ISO Motion [Scafide Decl.], ¶ 3, Ex. A.)

On July 9, 2025, Thomas served responses and objections to the RFAs noting that the verification would follow (Initial Responses). (Scafide Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. B.) These Initial Responses contained substantive responses as to some RFAs, specific objections as to some RFAs, and general objections applicable to all RFAs. (Scafide Decl., Ex. B.) The Initial Responses were signed by counsel only. (Ibid.)

On August 4, 2025, Thomas served additional responses (Additional Responses) to the RFAs which contained responses and objections that differed from the Initial Responses. (Scafide Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. D.) The Additional Responses were signed by counsel only. (Ibid.)

On September 10, 2025, Thomas apparently served final responses to the RFAs (Final Responses). (Reply, p. 2., ll. 12-15.) Thomas asserts these Final Responses were verified. (Declaration of Edward M. Higginbotham [Higginbotham Decl., ¶ 11].) Defendants argue the verification for the Final Responses was improper because it was not properly signed under oath, among other defects. (Reply, p. 2., ll. 17-19.) Neither Defendants nor Plaintiffs submitted the Final Responses to the court.

On September 10, 2025, the same day the Final Responses were served, Defendants filed this motion for an order deeming the RFAs admitted due to Thomas’ failure to provide a timely verification. Defendants also seek an order awarding monetary sanctions in the amount of $10,250. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

Analysis:

“The party to whom the requests for admission are directed shall sign the response under oath, unless the response contains only objections.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a).) “Whenever … any matter is required … to be … proved by … oath … such matter may … be … proved … in writing of such person which recites that it is certified or declared by him or her to be true under penalty of perjury ….” (Id. § 2015.5.) “The attorney for the responding party shall sign any response that contains an objection.” (Id. § 2033.240, subd. (c).)

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: [¶] … [¶]

“(b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

“(c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (b), (c).)

Here, the Initial Responses contained substantive responses and objections, and were required to be signed by counsel and signed under oath by Thomas. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subds. (a), (c).) The Initial Responses were signed only by counsel. The Additional Responses served on August 4 also contained substantive responses and were signed only by counsel. This was improper. “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

As to the Final Responses served on September 10, both parties make arguments about whether the Final Responses substantially comply with Thomas’s obligations under the Discovery Act. However, neither party provides the court with a copy of the Final Responses. The court declines to rule on this issue without reviewing the Final Responses.

Defendants argue in reply that the verification from Thomas for her Final Responses was not stated under oath. To resolve this issue, the court will order that Thomas serve a verification to the Final Responses in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.240, subdivision (a), and section 2015.5.

The court notes that because responses were included in Thomas’ Initial Responses as to some of the RFAs in the form of objections signed by counsel, the proper procedure as to those responses would be to move for further responses and include a separate statement. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) No separate statement was provided.

The court declines to award monetary sanctions.